For historical reference: I felt that WMF made significant progress with the 2013-2014 budget by opening it to community review and FDC review. Then there was a significant regression with 2014-2015 both in terms of the review period and in terms of WMF's responsiveness to questions; some questions from July 2015 still haven't been answered such as how the 40 new budgeted FTEs align with the overall annual plan. While the compressed review time was a big problem, I'm actually more disappointed with the lack of responses to community questions when there has been plenty of time to respond to them. The change in tone from the WMF after the most recent statement from the FDC is welcome, and I hope that we'll see meaningful improvements in transparency going forward. I appreciate the interest of the Board, the FDC, and Lila in making improvements.
Pine
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Anna Stillwell astillwell@wikimedia.org wrote:
+1 to all the hard work for the members of the FDC and Katy Love. Thank you all for your time, attention and care. /a
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 11:37 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
I should have said this earlier: a big thank you to everyone who worked
on
this funding round. From reading the Meta-Wiki pages, it's easy to see that there is a lot of data to process and audit and it requires a decent amount of work to issue these important recommendations each round.
Michael Peel wrote:
They are organisation-specific remarks. :-) The WMF did not apply to the FDC this round, hence why there are no amounts requested/allocated, or a proposal to link to. The FDC felt it necessary to include
recommendations
about the WMF anyway.
I may be showing my ignorance here, but I'm still confused. The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't go through the Funds Dissemination Committee at all, then? I see a note from the "2013-2014 round2" recommendations saying:
"For all future proposals, the FDC strongly emphasizes the need for a complete proposal: the WMF should undergo similar procedures as other entities in the movement."
Is it accurate to say that all large Wikimedia affiliates go through the Funds Dissemination Committee except the Wikimedia Foundation? Or from a different angle: how is the Wikimedia Foundation budget allocated? Does the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees currently do its own direct allocation, bypassing the FDC?
It's worth noting that there are two meanings to the word 'project' here
- there are the Wikimedia projects, and then there are projects run by
the Wikimedia organisations (think of, e.g., GLAM or education
projects).
It's particularly the latter case that is most relevant to the FDC's work, and in this case Wikidata falls under both meanings.
Sure, there are many senses of the word project, but this doesn't seem to answer the question asked. :-) Wikimedia Deutschland : Wikidata :: Wikimedia Foundation : Wikipedia, right? If one organization is expected to separate out costs for its largest technical project, shouldn't the other be as well?
MZMcBride
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Anna Stillwell Major Gifts Officer Wikimedia Foundation 415.806.1536 *www.wikimediafoundation.org http://www.wikimediafoundation.org* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe